The ethics of multiple authorship: power, performativity and the gift economy

Macfarlane, Bruce

doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1085009

Cited by 89 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Here, a combination of the 'publish or perish' syndrome, payment for publication in WoS journals, and an in-built respect for authority figures in China mean that it is common for new, or less qualified, staff to include better established, senior colleagues as authors in an attempt to increase the chance that a submission will be accepted for publication in a prestigious journal. It must be emphasised that we are not suggesting that this is a purely Chinese phenomenon since it clearly occurs in many countries and disciplines (Sokol, 2008;Strange, 2008;Zaki, 2011); however, it is known to be particularly well established in the Chinese context (Hvistendahl, 2013;Liao et al, 2017;Macfarlane, 2017). For example, an empirical analysis by Hao et al (2009) found that guest authorship was involved in 28.6% of papers published in 2008 in the Chinese Medical Journal, the great majority of the guest authors being heads of departments or institutions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Identification of research communities in cited and uncited publications using a co-authorship network

Lin

Willett

2018

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patterns of co-authorship provide an effective means of probing the structures of research communities. In this paper, we use the CiteSpace social network tool and co-authorship data from the Web of Science to analyse two such types of community. The first type is based on the cited publications of a group of highly productive authors in a particular discipline, and the second on the uncited publications of those highly productive authors. These pairs of communities were generated for three different countries-the People's Republic of China (PRC), the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States of America (USA)and for four different disciplines (as denoted by Web of Science subject categories)-Chemistry Organic, Engineering Environmental, Economics, and Management. In the case of the UK and USA, the structures of the cited and uncited communities in each of the four disciplines were markedly different from each other; in the case of the PRC, conversely, the cited and uncited PRC communities had broadly similar structures that were characterised by large groups of connected authors. We suggest that this may arise from a greater degree of guest or honorary authorship in the PRC than in the UK or the USA.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Identification of research communities in cited and uncited publications using a co-authorship network

Lin

Willett

2018

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These methods include the use of (fictional) case studies as stimulus to open up conversations on sensitive issues without having to direct the questions on the participants' own experience too explicitly. Macfarlane (2015), for instance, employed this approach to explore the (controversial) practices in deciding authorship order among faculty members and students.…”

Section: Conclusion and Way Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards “Operating Within” the Field: Doctoral Students’ Views of Supervisors’ Discipline Expertise

Gube

Getenet

Satariyan

et al. 2017

IJDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim/Purpose: This paper considers the role of supervisors’ discipline expertise in doctoral learning from a student perspective. Background: Doctoral students need to develop expertise in a particular field of study. In this context, developing expertise requires doctoral students to master disciplinary knowledge, conventions and scholarship under the guidance of supervisors. Methodology : The study draws on a mixed-method approach, using an online survey and semi-structured interviews conducted with doctoral students. Contribution: The paper brings to the fore the role of supervisors’ discipline expertise on doctoral students’ research progress. Findings: The survey data suggest that doctoral students nominate their supervisors on the basis of their discipline expertise. They also view supervisors’ expertise as key to the development of ‘insider’ knowledge of their doctoral research. Recommendations for Practitioners: Supervisors play a pivotal role in helping doctoral students overcome intellectual barriers by imparting their discipline knowledge as well as balancing satisfactory doctoral completion rate and high quality student experience. Impact on Society : Doctoral supervision equips doctoral students with the right arsenal to be able to competently operate within their field and prepares them for their future research or professional career that demands a high level of discipline expertise. Future Research: The scope of the findings leaves open a discussion about the experiences of doctoral students matched with non-discipline expert supervisory teams; for example, the extent of the mismatch and its ramifications.

show abstract

“…Unbalanced 'position power' (Macfarlane 2017) and hierarchy sustain a collaborative culture of discomfort, insecurity and anxiety which limits the scope for developing scholarly ideas.…”

Section: Traditional-hierarchical Rationalitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Complexities, challenges and implications of collaborative work within a regime of performance measurement: the case of management and organisation studies

Jeanes

Loacker

Śliwa

2018

Studies in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current demands on higher education institutions (HEIs) to become more efficient and effective have led to increasing performance pressures on researchers, and consequently on the practices and outcomes of researcher collaborations. In this paper, based on a qualitative study of collaborative experiences of management and organisation studies scholars, we explore the complexities and challenges of researcher collaborations under the current regime of academic performance measurement. Our study suggests that researcher collaborations are underpinned by four main rationalities: traditional-hierarchical, strategic-instrumental, scholarlyprofessional and relationship-orientated. We find that strategic-instrumental rationalities are the most prevalent and typically infuse other rationalities. Our research demonstrates that there are potential adverse consequences for the quality and purpose of outputs, the effects on collegial relationships and risks of exploitation and reinvoked hierarchies in collaborative relationships. The study reveals some of the problematic implications for academics and HEIs that emerge as a consequence of research productivity measurement.

show abstract

The ethics of multiple authorship: power, performativity and the gift economy

Cited by 89 publications

References 15 publications

Identification of research communities in cited and uncited publications using a co-authorship network

Identification of research communities in cited and uncited publications using a co-authorship network

Towards “Operating Within” the Field: Doctoral Students’ Views of Supervisors’ Discipline Expertise

Complexities, challenges and implications of collaborative work within a regime of performance measurement: the case of management and organisation studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About